5 ms·

While I'm not a historian of NASA (but see: http://history.nasa.gov/factsheet.htm http://history.nasa.gov/factsheet.htm), I think your summary in the first para

by mturmon 13y ago

While I'm not a historian of NASA (but see: http://history.nasa.gov/factsheet.htm http://history.nasa.gov/factsheet.htm), I think your summary in the first paragraph is way off. It's more accurate to say that the military had rockets in development, and they were pressed into service for the new space agency. From 1945 to 1957, the US military (Army, and later, Air Force) was sponsoring rocket development, e.g. von Braun's team in Huntsville. But after NASA was created in 1958 following Sputnik, it was made a civilian agency, and the crossover with the military was much less. NASA doesn't have a genuine connection to ICBMs. There's a lot more to space technology than rocketry, so there's little overlap between an ICBM (at the whole system level) and an earth-orbiter (again, considered as a system). For instance, one of the main ICBM design issues is target accuracy -- there's no such counterpart for an orbiter. Additionally, divergence between NASA goals and military goals is great enough that, even when prompted from above, the technology does not mix well. I'm thinking of the notion that the Shuttle would be used for military/intelligence satellite launch, and the NPOESS combined NOAA/NASA/DoD earth-observing satellite. The notion that there is a DoD "minder" in the back room seems kind of fanciful. In the late 1950s, maybe, but by the mid-60s -- I really doubt it -- except for some of the basic rocket engine technology.

jlgreco 13y ago
The military's interest in rockets was not limited to lobbing warheads, they took a very early interest in using rockets to put things into orbit. The first US satellite, the Explorer 1, was kicked off by the Army and the first stage of the Juno rocket that launched it was a modified Redstone, an Army ballistic missile (not an ICBM). Skipping forward to manned flight, the first two US manned Mercury missions (1961) used extended Redstones again for sub-orbital launches. The next four Mercury missions (1962-1963) used modified Atlas rockets (Atlas LV-3B's specifically, which were man-rated Atlas D's) These Atlas rockets were America's first ICBMs. Atlas rockets continued to be used for space launches for several more years, launching target vehicles for docking with during Gemini, launching a few space probes, etc. Literally dozens of Atlas D ICBMs were used as launch vehicles for damn near half a century. Some of the first GPS satellites were put up on Atlas rockets. The Gemini missions (1965-1966) continued this tradition, all using man-rated Titan IIs (ICBMs, but with more redundancy for reliability). In the years that followed, the Titan II continued to be used for satellite launches, and like the Atlas, spawned a successful line of derivative launch vehicles. The point that I am making here is that ICBMs worked swimmingly as launch vehicles, and weren't just pushed onto NASA for a task that they weren't fit to perform. Slap a Centaur/Agena/etc on top and they can do a hell of a lot, and with a few added redundancies, they got men into space brilliantly. Redstones/Atlas's/Titan IIs made quality launch vehicles. We are by no means talking "minimal overlap". It wasn't until 1968, less than a year before putting a man on the moon, that NASA used a non-ICBM derived launch vehicle for a manned mission (The Saturn 1B, with Apollo 7, and a few short months later with the famous Saturn V, for Apollo 8).
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The point that I am making here is that ICBMs worked swimmingly as launch vehicles, and weren't just pushed onto NASA for a task that they weren't fit to perform. Since the task of an ICBM and the task of an orbital launch vehicle are virtually indistinguishable, that shouldn't be all that surprising. It's the same task, just with a different payload.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Exactly. An ICBM getting something up there and moving sideways fast is doing the same thing as a launch vehicle getting something up there and moving sideways fast. ICBM technology is rocket technology, rocket technology is ICBM technology. The place where they really start to differentiate is the return vehicles. ICBM reentry vehicles have different requirements than other sort of reentry vehicles (basically they should have properties that make them harder to track and shoot down) but even then the physics is all the same physics.
- mturmon 13y ago
  My main point is that a space exploration capability is more than just rocketry. You are right, the rocket boosters were originally military-developed, and even today, many launch vehicles have heritage in the military. But, as we move past the first phase of the space program (demonstration orbiters), and NASA started to design capsules for astronauts and complex remote sensing instruments, rocketry became a smaller piece of the technology pie. I tried to amplify this point by noting examples where NASA-DoD partnerships have fizzled, mainly due to cultural/technology mismatches. The reason I replied to the comment is that it referred to SpaceX not having a DoD minder, as if that distinguishes SpaceX from today's NASA. There is no DoD minder calling the shots at NASA, so this struck me as a weird thing to say. (I have worked at JPL for many years...not on rockets. ;-)
ChuckMcM 13y ago
The connection has always been primarily in the contractors. Two agencies (NASA, DOD) sharing the same contractor (Martin Marietta, for example). It is a classic dual use scenario where both uses give value to the country (space exploration and space domination :-) which lead my neighbor (who worked at Lockheed in Sunnyvale to remark "win-win means we can sell it to both civilians and the military."

by mturmon 13y ago

jlgreco 13y ago

The military's interest in rockets was not limited to lobbing warheads, they took a very early interest in using rockets to put things into orbit. The first US satellite, the Explorer 1, was kicked off by the Army and the first stage of the Juno rocket that launched it was a modified Redstone, an Army ballistic missile (not an ICBM). Skipping forward to manned flight, the first two US manned Mercury missions (1961) used extended Redstones again for sub-orbital launches. The next four Mercury missions (1962-1963) used modified Atlas rockets (Atlas LV-3B's specifically, which were man-rated Atlas D's) These Atlas rockets were America's first ICBMs. Atlas rockets continued to be used for space launches for several more years, launching target vehicles for docking with during Gemini, launching a few space probes, etc. Literally dozens of Atlas D ICBMs were used as launch vehicles for damn near half a century. Some of the first GPS satellites were put up on Atlas rockets. The Gemini missions (1965-1966) continued this tradition, all using man-rated Titan IIs (ICBMs, but with more redundancy for reliability). In the years that followed, the Titan II continued to be used for satellite launches, and like the Atlas, spawned a successful line of derivative launch vehicles. The point that I am making here is that ICBMs worked swimmingly as launch vehicles, and weren't just pushed onto NASA for a task that they weren't fit to perform. Slap a Centaur/Agena/etc on top and they can do a hell of a lot, and with a few added redundancies, they got men into space brilliantly. Redstones/Atlas's/Titan IIs made quality launch vehicles. We are by no means talking "minimal overlap". It wasn't until 1968, less than a year before putting a man on the moon, that NASA used a non-ICBM derived launch vehicle for a manned mission (The Saturn 1B, with Apollo 7, and a few short months later with the famous Saturn V, for Apollo 8).

dragonwriter 13y ago
> The point that I am making here is that ICBMs worked swimmingly as launch vehicles, and weren't just pushed onto NASA for a task that they weren't fit to perform. Since the task of an ICBM and the task of an orbital launch vehicle are virtually indistinguishable, that shouldn't be all that surprising. It's the same task, just with a different payload.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Exactly. An ICBM getting something up there and moving sideways fast is doing the same thing as a launch vehicle getting something up there and moving sideways fast. ICBM technology is rocket technology, rocket technology is ICBM technology. The place where they really start to differentiate is the return vehicles. ICBM reentry vehicles have different requirements than other sort of reentry vehicles (basically they should have properties that make them harder to track and shoot down) but even then the physics is all the same physics.
mturmon 13y ago
My main point is that a space exploration capability is more than just rocketry. You are right, the rocket boosters were originally military-developed, and even today, many launch vehicles have heritage in the military. But, as we move past the first phase of the space program (demonstration orbiters), and NASA started to design capsules for astronauts and complex remote sensing instruments, rocketry became a smaller piece of the technology pie. I tried to amplify this point by noting examples where NASA-DoD partnerships have fizzled, mainly due to cultural/technology mismatches. The reason I replied to the comment is that it referred to SpaceX not having a DoD minder, as if that distinguishes SpaceX from today's NASA. There is no DoD minder calling the shots at NASA, so this struck me as a weird thing to say. (I have worked at JPL for many years...not on rockets. ;-)

ChuckMcM 13y ago

The connection has always been primarily in the contractors. Two agencies (NASA, DOD) sharing the same contractor (Martin Marietta, for example). It is a classic dual use scenario where both uses give value to the country (space exploration and space domination :-) which lead my neighbor (who worked at Lockheed in Sunnyvale to remark "win-win means we can sell it to both civilians and the military."